Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Co.

540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD what immediately follows is patently indefensible. Nor do I believe that the majority gain any greater cogency from the fact that the Employer may have misconstrued the Nash-Finch decision. I can find no warrant for setting aside an election because of a misinterpre- tation of a decision. The test, as the Board has repeatedly held, is whether the statements made in the course of a preelection campaign were reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice .3 Applying that test to the facts under consideration, I have no alternative but to dissent from the majority's finding. $ National Furniture Mannfactui img Company, Inc , 106 NLRB 1300. CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ORDNANCE DIVISION and LODGE 681, DISTRICT 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- CHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-IBC-21?3. February 8, 1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M. Kennedy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Contract-Bar Issue The Steelworkers moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the current contract bars an election of representatives at this time. The contract provides that it is to be effective until December 20, 1953, but that 60 days prior to that date the parties thereto shall commence negotiations looking to the execution of a new contract to take effect upon the expiration date of the existing contract. The 1 Fall City Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and Millwrights , Conveyors , and Machinery Erectors , Local Union 2209, AFL, affiliated with the Fall City Carpenters District Council , were permitted to intervene on the basis of cards signed by 23 of the 38 employees involved , authorizing the Millwrights, Conveyors and Machinery Erectors , Local Union 2209, to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining Local Union No. 4811, United Steelworkers of America , CIO, was allowed to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest in the employees herein involved. 111 NLRB No. 91. CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 541 petition was filed on November 24, 1953. As the contract contains no automatic renewal provisions and as the petition was filed within the laet,month of the term of the contract, we find that the petition was timely filed and the contract is not a bar to an election of representa- tives at this time. The motion is denied. The Unit Contentions The Petitioner seeks to represent all machine repairmen A and B, oilers, and powerhouse operators of the Employer's maintenance de- partment, or, in the alternative, any unit or units the Board may find appropriate. The Carpenters indicated that its intervention was coextensive with the unit requests of the Petitioner. Of the 38 employees involved in this proceeding, 4 are powerhouse operators, 9 are oilers, and 25 are classified as machine repairman A or B. The machine repairman classification is primarily a payroll classification and encompasses employees with varying skills and duties. Among these repairmen are employees who primarily per- form•sheetmetal work, painting, carpentry, rubber tank lining, weld- ing, pipefitting work, and mechanics who specialize in mechanical repair of automotive parts, pumps, hydraulic presses, refrigeration equipment, and New Britain lathes. These employees are all part of the Employer's maintenance department, in which is also included various electrician classifications. With the exception of the power- house employees, they work throughout the plant in carrying out their function of maintaining and repairing the Employer's production equipment. Although the machine repairmen are assigned to particu- lar types of repair work in accordance with their experience and ability, the Employer does not hesitate to interchange them when the need arises. Fifty percent of the machine repairmen had no previous experience when hired by the Employer. The five repairmen B are not assigned to any particular mechanic or particular variety of main- tenance work but assist all mechanics as the need arises. None of the employees are required to do precision machining. They fabricate some parts which do not require precision work. It is apparent that the broad unit sought by the Petitioner is inap- propriate for severance from the existing production and mainte- nance unit, because it consists of a heterogeneous group of employees with differing skills and functions.' We therefore find this unit to be inappropriate. In its alternative unit request the Petitioner indicated its willing- ness to represent any unit or units the Board may find to be appro- priate. We must therefore consider whether any possible grouping of employees may constitute an appropriate unit. 2 aummison Homes, Inc., 98 NLRB 1048, 1051. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The oilers: These employees' duties consist of the repetitive oiling of machines which duties can be mastered with as little as 30 days' training. They work under the same conditions and supervision as the machine repairmen and can progress to machine repairmen posi- tions. We find that they are not craftsmen and that they do not con- stitute a departmental unit capable of being severed from a produc- tion and maintenance unit. Accordingly we find that the oilers do not constitute an appropriate unit. The carpenter: We find it unnecessary to determine whether the carpenter is a craftsman. As there is only one carpenter, we would not direct an election to determine whether he wished to be represented separately in any event.' The painters: As neither the Petitioner nor the Carpenters tradi- tionally represents painters, we find that a unit of painters is inappropriate.4 The powerhouse employees: We find that a unit of powerhouse em- ployees is also inappropriate for the reason that neither the Petitioner nor the Carpenters traditionally represents powerhouse employees .5 Remaining machine repairmen: None of the remaining machine re- pairmen possess the skills or perform the duties normally associated with craftsmen.6 Though some of these employees had considerable Experience in their particular trades before their employment by the Employer, others had very little or no experience when hired by the Employer. Notwithstanding their lack of experience, after very short periods of time they received the same classification rating and the same rate of pay as the more experienced employees. The welders: The record shows that although the welders are classi- fied as machine repairmen, they spend at least 75 percent of their time welding and all of them in the estimation of the maintenance depart- ment superintendent, are capable of handling any welding job. They had previous welding experience when employed by the Employer. They are not assigned to work with a particular craft, but comprise a pool of welders and work throughout the plant. Prior to its decision in American Potash the Board permitted severance of welders such as those here involved on the ground that their skills are sufficiently high to justify separate representation in any event.' However, in the American Potash decision, the Board announced its new principles governing the severance of craft employees from production and maintenance units. Of the principles set forth there- in, the rule against a further extension of the National Tube doctrine, 3 Fritzsche Brothers, Inc , 107 NLRB 887. 4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 6 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, supra 6 Gunnison Homes, Inc , supra. Sawyer Biscuit Company, 92 NLRB 1447, p. 1449 7 lnternational Paper Company, 96 NLRB 295, p. 297. The Standard Register Com- pany, 106 NLRB 351; National Container Corp . of Wisconsin, 97 NLRB 1007, p. 1014. CLAYTON & LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY 543 and the rule requiring that the union seeking to sever a craft group from a larger unit must be one which traditionally represents that craft, have, perhaps, received the most attention. But of equal im- portance to an understanding of the Board's craft severance policies is the statement that : In adopting our new rule, we wish to make it clear that the re- quirement that the unit sought to be severed must be a true craft group will be rigidly enforced in cases where severance is sought on that basis. We propose to exercise great care in making certain that in the administration of this rule only groups exercising gen- uine craft skills will be embraced within the ambit of the rule, and the requirements will not be relaxed over a period of time. We feel that the problem is one of administration rather than con- cept. We are also of the opinion that under the rule we are adopting fewer groups will be severed but that, at the same time, the principle of craft independence will be maintained. In keeping with the above principles, we have reexamined the que,;- tion of whether welders may properly be considered craft employees for the purpose of applying our craft severance policies. It is our judgment that the Board's past practice of finding that welders may constitute a separate craft unit is the result of too loose an application of the craft concept.' It ignores the fact that Congress, in prohibiting the Board from finding that any craft unit is inappropriate on the grounds of a past bargaining history on a broader basis, demonstrated a concern for the equities of craft employees and craft unions,' by guaranteeing to craft employees the opportunity to decide whether they wished to be represented separately. Congress recognized that ,the special problems of craft employees had occasioned the rise of craft unions which have devoted themselves to the special problems of a particular craft group. In our view, Congress provided craft em- ployees with an opportunity to declare for severance from a broader unit, despite the possible disruption of a stabilized bargaining rela- tionship which might ensue, because it was persuaded that the benefits resulting from a guarantee to craft employees of the right to be rep- resented on a separate basis by unions which through long experience and familiarity had gained a special competence in representing their special interests, outweighed the advantages to be gained from continu- ing the preexisting form of representation.10 Keeping in mind these considerations, we think it relevant to exam- ine why the development of welding as a method of uniting metals has not been accompanied by the contemporaneous rise and successful B See cases cited in footnote 7, where a bare recital that the employees involved were engaged in welding was sufficient to warrant their severance from a broader unit. 6 Ame, ican Potash & Chemical Company, supra. 10 See in this regard the legislative history detailed in the American Potash decision. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD growth of a union concerned only with the problems of welders." The very lack of such a union is an indication that welders do not have the distinctive and traditionally recognized interests of true craft em- ployees. Indeed the AFL has consistently taken the position that welding is a process and not a trade and that it should not become the exclusive use of any trade, occupation, or union'12 but that individual welders who utilize the welding process in the performance of a basic craft, belong to the union which has control over the basic craft in which the welder is also skilled, and that those welders who perform only welding belong to whichever union can win their allegiance. Such a position necessarily involves a determination on the part of the AFL that welding is not a separate and distinct craft. In maintaining this position the AFL was no doubt influenced by the fact that nor- mally no long period of instruction is necessary before a worker can competently perform the operations required of a welder." The AFL's position in this regard seems to have been recognized by the Bureau of Apprenticeship 14 which does not list welding as an ap- prenticeable occupation. Though the bureau cautions that the list is not to be considered final or conclusive, it seems plain to us that with respect to such a widely used technique as welding, its exclusion from the list necessarily implies that it does not meet the standards of an apprenticeable occupation, and probably for the reason that the bureau considers it to be merely part of an apprenticeable trade.i5 In the light of these considerations, we find that welding as such is not a separate and distinct craft within the meaning of the definition set forth in American Potash. Consequently we shall no longer per- mit welders as a group to be severed from an established production and maintenance unit. However, we shall in future craft severance proceedings, include welders who are regularly assigned to work with particular crafts, in a unit of the particular craft to which the welders "The Directory of Labor Unions in America, 1953, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics , lists two welders unions , with a total membership of only 1,030 members. They are the Welders & Cutters Union (Ind.) with 100 members and the National Union, United Welders of America ( Ind ) with 930 members. Neither of these unions is listed in the 1948 Directory of Labor Unions of America The development of welding as a means of uniting metals began before World War I. Information furnished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to this agency indicates that there are approximately 250,000 welders presently employed in the United States. la See convention proceedings of the American Federation of Labor for the years 1916, 1920, 1934, 1936, 1940, 1941. '- Convention proceeding of the American Federation of Labor, 1941, p. 524, wherein Mr. Frey stated: "Now as most of you know . . . but with the enormous increase of welding replacing riveting in ship construction and other construction welding schools have been set up all over the country, and they turn out what is known as sixty-day welders Our International Unions have taken these young men with only sixty days' experience, and secured for them the basic rate of pay we secure in agreements for the most competent mechanics There are no men engaged in any form of metal work who have profited so much in dollars and cents and in wages and conditions as welder members of these unions " 14 See the National Apprenticeship Program, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship, 1952. 15 Ibid. Criteria for Apprenticeable Occupations. SWIFT & COMPANY 545 are assigned, if we are satisfied that on the basis of training or experi- ence the welders utilize a high degree of skill." As the welders involved herein are not assigned to work with any particular craft, we find that they do not constitute an appropriate unit for severance purposes. As no possible grouping of employees may constitute an appro- priate unit, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER RODGERS, concurring : I agree with the holding in this case to the effect that this Board will no longer permit welders as a group to be severed from a produc- tion and maintenance unit. I would reach such result on these histori- cal bases : (1) That welders as such have not been traditionally repre- sented by any labor organization devoted solely or primarily to the representation of welders, and (2) that welders have historically been treated for representation purposes as part of other crafts-plumbers, machinists, etc.-with which they work in conjunction. By agreeing with the result here, I expressly reject any contention or inference that welding is not a recognized craft, and that a qualified welder does not possess craft skills. MEMBER MuRDocr, took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 16 Cf. International Paper Company, supra. SWIFT & COMPANY and TRUCK DRIVERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL 414, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-4160. February 8,1955 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Sigal, hearing offi- cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent cer, al n employees of the Employer. 111 NLRB No. 85.